"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

Carlton Hogan carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu
Thu Oct 1 12:04:54 EST 1998


In article <3611837f.679782075 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
 <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 29 Sep 1998 21:06:31 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>Hogan) wrote:
>
>>In article <36114369.663373706 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On 28 Sep 1998 16:39:26 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <360c01bb.318827338 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 25 Sep 1998 20:47:08 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
>>>>>Hogan) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One more comment: If you are in fact a dentist, and believe that 
>>>>>>presence of antibodies means you have conquered an infection
>>>>>>(counter examples: syphilis, herpes, hepatitis and most damningly
>>>>>>leishmaniasis, leprosy and schistomasiasis, where higher antibody
>>>>>>titers are prognostic for WORSE clinical outcome) then I am very concerned
>>>>>>for your patients. Such staggering ignorance in a medical professional
>>>>>>is outrageous.
>>>>>now who's guilty of handwaving!jb
>>>>
>>>>Simple yes/no question: do you believe that the presence of pathogen-binding 
>>>>antibodies  automatically mean that the pathogen has been "conquered"
>>>>by the host?
>>>If you'll answer with a simple yes or no to the question that i have,
>>>I'll do the same for you.  Has or has not the AIDS establishment
>>>focused on the lack of immune protection from an HIV positive status
>>>been determined by the conclusion that these HIV antibodies are
>>>"non-neutralizing"  thus exempt from the rule of protection?  Jb
>>
>>Handwaving. You posted that a positive antibody response means you 
>>have cleared an infection.Do you, or do you not believe that?
>
>Yes or no, dummy.  jb

You appear to be majorly cognitively-challenged. I asked you to defend
an assertion that you made (antibodies necessarily mean that one
has conquered the relevant micr-organism). Instead of being a man.
and standing up for your own statements, you yourself make another 
assertion, and challenge me to defend it. If you cannot see the 
difference, it is possible that you are gravely developmentally
disabled, and I should probably slack off, in interest of fairness.
You don't need to put words in my mouth: I am very capable of saying
what I mean. 

_YOU_ made a fallacious statement about Abs and immunity. I never made 
the statement you want me to defend. I think it is now clear, to all
reading this thread that you are unable or unwilling to back up your 
own words, instead choosing to muddy the waters with another statement
that you pen, asking me to defend such. _YOU_ made the statement about
Abs. Do you wish to retract it?

Carlton



More information about the Immuno mailing list